Advanced Audit and Assurance (International) · Audit procedures and obtaining evidence

Using Experts, Management Representations and Audit Documentation

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

ISA 620 covers when and how you rely on an auditor's expert: assess competence, capabilities and objectivity, agree scope, then evaluate the work. ISA 580 requires written representations from management, which never replace other evidence. ISA 230 requires documentation that lets an experienced auditor with no prior link to the audit understand the work done.

Understand Using Experts, Management Representations and Documentation

These three standards sit at the end of evidence gathering. Each answers a different question. ISA 620 asks: can I rely on a specialist? ISA 580 asks: what must management confirm in writing? ISA 230 asks: how do I record what I did so it can be reviewed?

An auditor's expert is a person or firm with expertise in a field other than accounting or auditing, whose work you use to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence. Examples are a valuer of property, an actuary for pension obligations, or an engineer estimating mineral reserves. The expert may be internal to your firm or external. A management's expert is engaged by the entity, such as the valuer the client hires. You treat that work as audit evidence under ISA 500 and evaluate it. The key difference is who engages the expert. Responsibility for the audit opinion stays with you in both cases.

Do not refer to the auditor's expert in an unmodified auditor's report unless law or regulation requires it. If the reference is required, or is relevant to understanding a modified opinion, the report must state that the reference does not reduce your responsibility for the opinion.

Written representations are statements from management, and where appropriate those charged with governance, given to you in writing to confirm certain matters or support other evidence. They are necessary evidence but they are not sufficient on their own. Management must confirm it has fulfilled its responsibility for the financial statements and has given you all relevant information and access, and that all transactions have been recorded. Other representations support specific assertions, such as the completeness of related party disclosures or the intention to carry out a course of action.

If management refuses to give a requested representation, you discuss it with those charged with governance, reconsider management's integrity and the reliability of other representations and evidence, and assess the effect on your opinion. If concerns about integrity are serious enough to make representations unreliable, you must determine the effect on the reliability of representations in general and of other audit evidence. Treat the cases separately.

A disclaimer of opinion is required only where management does not provide the representations on its responsibility for the financial statements and on providing all information and recording all transactions, or where doubts about its integrity are so serious that those representations are unreliable.
If the refused representation is a specific one, such as completeness of related party disclosures, reconsider integrity first and assess the effect on your reliance on other evidence. Then modify the opinion under ISA 705 according to the effect: qualified if material but not pervasive, disclaimer if pervasive.

Documentation under ISA 230 must be sufficient for an experienced auditor with no previous connection to the engagement to understand the nature, timing and extent of procedures, the results and evidence obtained, and significant matters and judgements. You record who performed and who reviewed the work and when. ISA 230 requires you to assemble the documentation in the final audit file on a timely basis after the date of the auditor's report. It sets no fixed number of days. The time limit comes from firm policy under ISQM 1, and many firms use 60 days. After assembly, you do not delete or discard documentation before the end of its retention period, which law and firm policy set.

Key rules to remember

Expert evaluation (ISA 620): Reliance = competence + capabilities + objectivity + agreed scope + adequate work; Assess these before relying. Then evaluate whether the expert's findings, assumptions and source data are appropriate.
Auditor's responsibility: Opinion responsibility = auditor only; Using an expert never reduces your responsibility. Do not refer to the auditor's expert in an unmodified report unless law or regulation requires it.
Management's expert: Evaluate competence, capabilities, objectivity, understand their work, then evaluate appropriateness as evidence; Engaged by the client, so objectivity may be threatened.
Mandatory representations (ISA 580): Responsibility for preparing the financial statements in accordance with the framework (including a fair presentation where relevant) + responsibility for providing all relevant information and access and for recording all transactions; If concerns about management's integrity make representations unreliable, determine the effect on the reliability of representations in general and on other evidence, and disclaim where required. Date the letter as near as practicable to, but not after, the date of the auditor's report.
Representations as evidence: Written representations ≠ sufficient appropriate evidence on their own; They corroborate other evidence and never replace it.
Documentation test (ISA 230): File must let an experienced auditor with no prior connection understand the work; Cover the work done, who did and reviewed it, evidence, results and significant judgements.
Final file assembly: Assemble on a timely basis after the date of the auditor's report; the time limit is set by firm policy; ISA 230 sets no fixed day limit. Firm policy under ISQM 1 sets it, and 60 days is commonly used. After assembly, do not delete documentation before the end of its retention period.

How to solve Using Experts, Management Representations and Documentation questions

Written questions on this topic give you a scenario and ask what you should do, what could go wrong, or what you would document. Use the same method each time.

1Identify which standard the requirement tests: expert (ISA 620), representations (ISA 580) or documentation (ISA 230). Some questions combine them.
2Pick out scenario facts: who engaged the expert, the expert's links to the client, the size of the balance, and management's attitude.
3State the rule briefly, then apply it to the facts. A rule with no application earns few marks.
4For experts, work through need, competence, capabilities, objectivity, agreed scope, and evaluation of the work and data.
5For representations, state what is required, why it is not sufficient alone, and the action if management refuses or integrity is in doubt.
6For documentation, say what to record, who reviewed it and when, and how any change after file assembly is handled.
7Reach a clear conclusion or recommendation, such as the further evidence needed or the effect on the opinion.
8Add a professional skills point where relevant, such as scepticism about a representation that conflicts with evidence.

Quickest way: Rule, fact, action

When to use it: Use it when you have few minutes per mark and need a tight structure for any ISA 620, 580 or 230 requirement.

Write the standard in the margin.
List the scenario facts that trigger the rule, such as a related expert or a refusal.
Give one line of rule, one line of application, one line of action for each point.
Check you have answered with a conclusion, for example modify the opinion or obtain a different expert.
Spend leftover time on a professional skills point.

Common mistakes in Using Experts, Management Representations and Documentation

Saying the auditor can rely on a management representation instead of other evidence.
Students see a signed letter and treat it as strong evidence.
Fix: State that representations are not sufficient on their own. They support other evidence and cannot replace it where evidence should exist.
Saying using an expert transfers responsibility for the opinion to the expert.
Students assume specialists carry the risk.
Fix: Say the auditor keeps sole responsibility for the opinion and must evaluate the expert's work.
Confusing the auditor's expert with management's expert.
Both are valuers or actuaries, so they look the same.
Fix: Ask who engaged the expert. If the client did, treat the work as evidence to be evaluated, with extra attention to objectivity.
Listing competence but ignoring objectivity.
Qualifications are easy to spot in a scenario.
Fix: Look for family, financial or employment links to the client and suggest safeguards or a different expert.
Dating the representation letter after the auditor's report or well before it.
Students overlook the timing rule.
Fix: Date it as near as practicable to, but not after, the date of the auditor's report, covering all periods referred to.
Writing generic documentation points such as keep good records.
Students do not link the point to the ISA 230 test.
Fix: Refer to the experienced auditor test and name the content: procedures, evidence, results, judgements, and who did and reviewed the work.

Worked examples

Example 1

You are auditing Kora Mining, which values its mineral reserves using a geologist engaged by the finance director. The geologist is the finance director's brother-in-law. The reserves are material. Explain the audit implications and your actions.

Show the solution

The geologist is management's expert because the client engaged them. The work is audit evidence that you must evaluate.
The family link is a threat to objectivity. The valuation drives a material balance, so the risk is significant.
Assess competence and capabilities: qualifications, experience, and whether they have the resources and methods suited to the task.
Because objectivity is in doubt, consider whether the evidence is reliable. You may ask management to use another expert or engage your own auditor's expert.
If you use your own expert, apply ISA 620: agree scope, roles and communication, then evaluate the findings, assumptions and source data.
Compare the two sets of results. Investigate large differences and ask management to explain them.
If you cannot obtain sufficient appropriate evidence, consider the effect on your opinion and modify it if needed.

Answer: The geologist's objectivity is impaired, so the reserves estimate is weak evidence. Engage an independent auditor's expert or require another management expert, and evaluate their work. If sufficient appropriate evidence is still not available, modify the opinion.

Example 2

During the audit of Zenith Retail, management refuses to sign a representation that all related party transactions have been disclosed. Explain what you do and the effect on the audit.

Show the solution

Written representations are required evidence. The refusal is a significant matter.
Discuss the refusal with management to understand the reason, then raise it with those charged with governance.
Reconsider the reliability of other representations and of the other evidence, and whether your risk assessment is still valid, particularly on integrity.
Perform further procedures on related parties, such as reviewing minutes, bank records and legal correspondence, and enquiring of staff.
Representations on responsibility for the financial statements and on providing all information and recording all transactions are required. If management refuses those, or you conclude its integrity is so doubtful that those representations are unreliable, you must disclaim an opinion.
The related party representation is a specific one, so a refusal does not by itself mean a disclaimer. Reconsider integrity first. If integrity doubts are not so serious that the responsibility representations are unreliable, assess the effect on your reliance on other evidence. If you cannot get sufficient appropriate evidence elsewhere, modify the opinion under ISA 705: qualified if the effect is material but not pervasive, disclaimer if it is pervasive.
Document the refusal, your discussions and your conclusion on the file.

Answer: Escalate to those charged with governance, perform extra procedures on related parties and reassess integrity and the reliability of other evidence. Disclaim only if the responsibility representations are refused or integrity doubts make them unreliable. Otherwise modify the opinion under ISA 705: qualified if the effect is material but not pervasive, disclaimer if pervasive. Document everything.

Exam tips

Always ask who engaged the expert before writing. It decides which approach you take.
When a scenario shows a refusal or a conflict, give an action and the opinion effect, not just the rule.
Link representations to specific scenario matters, such as a management intention or related parties, instead of listing a generic letter.
Use the phrase experienced auditor with no previous connection when answering any documentation question.
Add a scepticism point where a representation conflicts with other evidence, since this earns professional skills marks.

Practice questions from Audit procedures and obtaining evidence

Using Experts, Management Representations and Documentation in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

Using Experts, Management Representations and Documentation: frequently asked questions

What is the difference between an auditor's expert and management's expert?

An auditor's expert is engaged by the auditor to help obtain evidence. A management's expert is engaged by the entity to help prepare the financial statements. You evaluate both, but management's expert needs extra attention to objectivity.

Can I rely only on written representations?

No. Written representations are necessary but are not sufficient on their own. They support other evidence and cannot replace evidence that should reasonably be available.

Should I mention the auditor's expert in the auditor's report?

Not in an unmodified opinion, unless law or regulation requires it. If the reference is required by law, or is relevant to understanding a modified opinion, the report must state that the reference does not reduce your responsibility for the opinion.

What must audit documentation show under ISA 230?

It must show the nature, timing and extent of procedures, the results and evidence obtained, and significant matters and judgements. It must also show who did and reviewed the work. An experienced auditor with no link to the audit should understand it.